Environment Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the RAC Foundation

1. The RAC Foundation (Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring) is a transport policy and research organisation which explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues relating to roads and their users. The Foundation publishes independent and authoritative research with which it promotes informed debate and advocates policy in the interest of the responsible motorist.

2. We welcome the opportunity to provide input into the Committee’s inquiry into accessibility of public services.

3. When talking about accessibility generally it is important to highlight the reliance on the car in British society. 84% of personal distance travelled within the UK (excluding walking or cycling) is done by cars, vans and taxis. This compares with 6% by bus, 8% by rail and less than 1% by pedal cycles.1 It is important to point out that this is a national average, and that outside London or the major conurbations, the proportion by car is higher.

4. 64% of all trips are as a car driver or passenger, compared with 22% on foot and 7% by local buses. Only 2.8% of trips are done by rail (which includes London underground).2

5. The main purposes of car travel are leisure (29%), eg visiting friends and family at home and elsewhere, shopping (20%) and commuting (16%). Car travel for education accounts for 8%.3

6. Factors which influence the distance and number of trips—one, albeit indirect, indicator of access—people do by car include: the availability of/access to a car; the price of running a car (fuel, maintenance, insurance, tax); the availability of public transport to access public services; congestion; and parking availability.

7. For many journeys, public transport outside London or any of the major conurbations is poor. It is difficult to complete an entire journey without access to a car, be it as a driver or passenger. This forces people into using their cars, which is exacerbated by the fact that integration between cars and other modes of transport is generally poor. Therefore, if the costs of owning and using a car are high (as a proportion of income), access generally will be constrained, especially for low-income households.

8. For most car journeys, most notably medium-distance ones (10–50 miles), which account for 16% of journeys and 43% of miles travelled, there is often no realistic alternative to the car.4

9. While it is true that in absolute terms better-off car owners pay more on owning and running their cars, as a proportion of income low-income car-owning households pay a greater share.5 This means they are more reliant on using their cars than the better-off, which is evidenced by the fact that car use in low-income groups is high.

10. According to the Office for National Statistics transport is the single biggest area of household expenditure at £64.90 a week. This is followed by housing, fuel and power at £60.40, recreation and culture at £58.10, and food and non-alcoholic drinks at £53.20. Of the £64.90 spent on transport, 49% was spent on the operation of personal transport (£33.30—of which £21.60 was spent on petrol, diesel and other motor oils), 30% was spent on the purchase of vehicles, and 19% was spent on transport services such as rail, tube and bus.6

11. The high proportion of weekly income spent on transport underlines households’ vulnerability to insurance costs, the cost of fuel, and, for younger drivers, the cost of acquiring a driving licence.

12. According to a recent report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation,7 “In 2012, for the first time, families with children (but not households without children) living in urban areas outside London defined a car as essential. Focus groups’ perceptions of the declining adequacy of public transport seemed to resonate with evidence of cuts in services and sharp price rises since 2007–08. Parents taking part in the research agreed that public transport is expensive and not sufficiently flexible and reliable to meet the needs of families with children.”

13. Buses are also important in providing certain groups of people with access if they do not have access to a car. According to Greener Journeys: 25% of households do not have access to a car (although the share of number of people is lower) and are completely reliant on the bus for many of their essential journeys; 43% of regular bus commuters do not have access to a car; and 70% of those with no car available use the bus frequently, compared with 20% of those with car available.8

14. Students are one of the major groups using buses—over 50% of students over 16 are frequent bus users. 30% of those who are dependent on bus services to access their education and training courses live in areas in the top 10% of most deprived areas in Great Britain.9

15. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report quoted above highlights “the vulnerability of low-income families to the effect of cuts in services (including bus services, which can raise family transport costs) and in support through tax credits.”

16. It is important to highlight, however, that, in England, over 50% of passenger journeys on local bus services take place in London, and that outside London bus use is generally lower.10

17. While there has been a big growth in train travel, according to a National Rail report Britain relies on rail, 70% of all rail journeys start or end in London—if London underground is included, this figure is even higher.11 Rail is used more by wealthier households, thus further highlighting lower income households’ reliance on the car.12 It would therefore be more appropriate to state that “London relies on rail and bus”, and that “Britain relies on the car”.

18. The abandonment of detailed Planning Policy Guidelines (PPG), specifically PPG13 on transport, and replacement with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) may mean that reliance on the car is increased and access for those without a car restricted. Of particular concern in the NPPF are the requirement that planning authorities must prove that the transport/traffic impact of a development must be severe for this impact to be treated as a reason to reject an application, and the move away from requirements to produce a travel plan, which might mitigate the transport impacts of a development proposal.13

19. As mentioned above, 64% of all trips people make in the UK (as driver or passenger) are by car. Unless the trip being made is just an escorted trip where the passenger will be “set down”, the car will require a parking space within walking distance of the destination. The walking distance will vary from person to person and will depend for all on the time available. So if suitable parking is not available at the destination or at a convenient distance from the destination access will be compromised or denied for car users. This may mean that a driver will go to another location for shops and services, not be able to access an alternative mode of transport for a long trip, or have to rely on publicly supplied and funded transport, for example an ambulance service to access health services. For older or disabled drivers, for whom parking can be the major obstacle in a journey, the last point is particularly important: parking availability can be the difference between being independent and being reliant on external provision of transport.

20. Increasing access could be achieved through increasing car ownership. This may conflict with our environmental objectives as, on a per capita basis, car travel tends to emit more greenhouse gases than its alternatives. However, this will not always be the case, as in rural areas buses and rail tend to be older-generation technologies, are likely to operate with low(er) “load factors”, and therefore have higher per capita emissions than cars with more than one passenger.

21. One solution to this could be alternative forms of car access: car clubs, car rental, lift sharing, peer-to-peer car clubs and one-way car clubs. Although the net environmental impact of these services is a much debated topic, research suggests that overall mileage (and therefore emissions) do decrease: those who drive more, drive a bit more, but those who drive less, drive a lot less.14 To maximise the mobility benefits provided by these alternatives of car access, they must be integrated efficiently and effectively with public transport.15 However, they also require increased access to the Internet and smartphones.

22. The Office for National Statistics estimates that the UK population will increase to 73 million by 2035.16 Accommodating 10 million more people should not only require the building of new homes, but also the provision of services to go with them. It is important that planning policy ensures that communities are built with community facilities to minimise the need to travel.

23. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that more than 10 million of the existing population will live to the age of 100.17 Albeit of a different type, an ageing population will still have transport demands to access services.

24. This may require a change in the way in which services are provided in order to reduce the need to travel in the first place. Examples of this already include NHS Direct, an extension of opening hours of the NHS, grocery deliveries, distance learning, and so on. However, many of these services will require the roll-out of virtual infrastructure—physical phone and broadband networks, as well as mobile networks—and access to the Internet for the whole population.

25. It is also possible to combine public services in one location. This has happened in certain places, for example Ashford Gateway Plus (formerly Ashford Library), which now provides full library facilities, civil ceremonies, housing and benefits advice, adult education courses, and many more public services.18

17 September 2012